Preferred enemy and buildings

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**greatergoodjones**

DeathReaper wrote:
And none of those rules say it counts as...

Therefore It never counts as a vehicle, unless you have a rule saying it counts as a vehicle.

Could you explain what the difference between "counts as" and "treat just as if" is?

**clively**

DeathReaper wrote:
And none of those rules say it counts as...

Therefore It never counts as a vehicle, unless you have a rule saying it counts as a vehicle.

They don't have to. The phrase "counts as" is not a defined BRB term. However, for the purposes of discussion "as if it was a" is semantically identical. But, if you have a problem with that, then we can throw away the "counts as" verbiage and simply revert to "as if it was" and still have RAW satisfied that the building is for all intents and purposes to be treated "as if it was a" vehicle when occupied. Which is the meaning of that sentence.

**greatergoodjones**

clively wrote:
DeathReaper wrote:
And none of those rules say it counts as...

Therefore It never counts as a vehicle, unless you have a rule saying it counts as a vehicle.

They don't have to. The phrase "counts as" is not a defined BRB term. However, for the purposes of discussion "as if it was a" is semantically identical. But, if you have a problem with that, then we can throw away the "counts as" verbiage and simply revert to "as if it was" and still have RAW satisfied that the building is for all intents and purposes to be treated "as if it was a" vehicle when occupied. Which is the meaning of that sentence.

Well, technically we only treat it as a vehicle when we are shooting or assaulting it, but for PE we don't care at any other time.

**Abandon**

DeathReaper wrote:
And none of those rules say it counts as...

Therefore It never counts as a vehicle, unless you have a rule saying it counts as a vehicle.

Does not matter if it 'counts as' a vehicle. You are given permission to treat it "just as if it was a vehicle" and that includes re-rolls for shooting with PE.

**DeathReaper**

I was pointing out that it never said counts as.

The building is never a foe therefore it does not ever matter as Preferred enemy is only for Foes.

**greatergoodjones**

DeathReaper wrote:
I was pointing out that it never said counts as.

The building is never a foe therefore it does not ever matter as Preferred enemy is only for Foes.

I'm sure you have done this, though looking back over the thread I really don't see a good definition, so could you please define "foe" as you are using it and back up the definition with page numbers?

I would also point out that looking at the wording of the rule, I don't agree it only works on foes. It says that X identifies a specific type of foe, or it applies to everybody. It doesn't say that if there is no X, it only applies to every foe.

**DeathReaper**

This post explains it all:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/514942.page#5417250

**clively**

So, you cant define foe using the brb. Typical.

The only mention of that word in your post is a reference to the challenge rules which have no bearing.

Death reaper, you seem to be rule challenged here. We have a clear RAW statement to treat the building as if it was a vehicle and quite frankly nothing on your side to back up that this is limited in any fashion. We know PE works against vehicles, we know vehicles ( and by extension buildings ) get deny the witch; unless they are fortifications because that was specifically FAQd.

Several people here have requested detailed rules on the words you are using and you can't supply them.

Just do the right thing and concede.

**greatergoodjones**

DeathReaper wrote:
This post explains it all:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/514942.page#5417250

I honestly don't see how that makes your point at all, and quite frankly find the whole point confusing.

You certainly didn't provide a definition of enemy that I can see, just that various things have been referenced as enemies thought out the book, followed by an unsupported statement that these and only these can be enemies.

Besides which, when we shoot an occupied building we treat it as if it was a vehicle, does this not mean that we treat it as if it was a unit? After all vehicles are units, so if we treat it like it was a vehicle, we must treat it as if it were a unit. And by your own words if its a unit it can be an enemy.

**DeathReaper**

clively wrote:
So, you cant define foe using the brb. Typical.

I did, in that post.

Foe = enemy.

Enemy = unit/model etc.

greatergoodjones wrote:
when we shoot an occupied building we treat it as if it was a vehicle, does this not mean that we treat it as if it was a unit? After all vehicles are units, so if we treat it like it was a vehicle, we must treat it as if it were a unit. And by your own words if its a unit it can be an enemy.

No a building is never a unit as all units have a unit type.

"In addition to its characteristics profile, each model will have a unit type, such as Infantry or Cavalry" (P.3)

Foe = Enemy:

Page 64 "can't challenge a specific enemy, he just issues a challenge to the foe at large and sees who steps forwards." This uses foe and enemy interchangeably.

**greatergoodjones**

DeathReaper wrote:
clively wrote:
So, you cant define foe using the brb. Typical.

I did, in that post.

Foe = enemy.

Enemy = unit/model etc.

greatergoodjones wrote:
when we shoot an occupied building we treat it as if it was a vehicle, does this not mean that we treat it as if it was a unit? After all vehicles are units, so if we treat it like it was a vehicle, we must treat it as if it were a unit. And by your own words if its a unit it can be an enemy.

No a building is never a unit as all units have a unit type.

"In addition to its characteristics profile, each model will have a unit type, such as Infantry or Cavalry" (P.3)

And we are treating it as if it were a vehicle, so we are treating it as if it were a unit with the vehicle type

**DeathReaper**

A building is never a unit as it never has a unit type.

You can treat it as a vehicle to shoot at, because if you did not you could not shoot it at all, but that does not make the building a unit.

**greatergoodjones**

DeathReaper wrote:
A building is never a unit as it never has a unit type.

You can treat it as a vehicle to shoot at, because if you did not you could not shoot it at all, but that does not make the building a unit.

lets go step by step

Are Vehicles units?

**DeathReaper**

greatergoodjones wrote:
DeathReaper wrote:
A building is never a unit as it never has a unit type.

You can treat it as a vehicle to shoot at, because if you did not you could not shoot it at all, but that does not make the building a unit.

lets go step by step

Are Vehicles units?

They have a unit type so yes they are.

Buildings do not have a type though so they are not units. (Buildings are not models either).

**greatergoodjones**

DeathReaper wrote:
greatergoodjones wrote:
DeathReaper wrote:
A building is never a unit as it never has a unit type.

You can treat it as a vehicle to shoot at, because if you did not you could not shoot it at all, but that does not make the building a unit.

lets go step by step

Are Vehicles units?

They have a unit type so yes they are.

May units shoot or charge at an occupied building as if it were a vehicle? answer, pg 93

**DeathReaper**

Again, yes units can shoot or charge at an occupied building as if it were a vehicle, but that does not make the building a model or a unit.

**greatergoodjones**

DeathReaper wrote:
Again, yes units can shoot or charge at an occupied building as if it were a vehicle, but that does not make the building a model or a unit.

So if a vehicle is a unit, and if we treat a building as if it were a vehicle, do we not treat the building as if it were a unit?

EDIT
To put it in terms of math.
A (unit) equals B (Vehicle)
C (building) equals B (Vehicle)
so using the transitive property
C (building) equals A (unit)

**DeathReaper**

greatergoodjones wrote:
DeathReaper wrote:
Again, yes units can shoot or charge at an occupied building as if it were a vehicle, but that does not make the building a model or a unit.

So if a vehicle is a unit, and if we treat a building as if it were a vehicle, do we not treat the building as if it were a unit?

EDIT
To put it in terms of math.
A (unit) equals B (Vehicle)
C (building) equals B (Vehicle)
so using the transitive property
C (building) equals A (unit)

No we do not.

Let me ask you this : Does a Building have a unit type?

**greatergoodjones**

DeathReaper wrote:
greatergoodjones wrote:
DeathReaper wrote:
Again, yes units can shoot or charge at an occupied building as if it were a vehicle, but that does not make the building a model or a unit.

So if a vehicle is a unit, and if we treat a building as if it were a vehicle, do we not treat the building as if it were a unit?

EDIT
To put it in terms of math.
A (unit) equals B (Vehicle)
C (building) equals B (Vehicle)
so using the transitive property
C (building) equals A (unit)

No we do not.

Let me ask you this : Does a Building have a unit type?

When you shoot it, yes, the type is vehicle

**DeathReaper**

greatergoodjones wrote:

When you shoot it, yes, the type is vehicle

Citation needed.

page and graph will suffice.

**greatergoodjones**

DeathReaper wrote:
greatergoodjones wrote:

When you shoot it, yes, the type is vehicle

Citation needed.

page and graph will suffice.

Its been quoted many times now, pg 93

"Units may shoot at or charge an occupied building as if it were a vehicle"

you agreed that vehicles are units, so if we are shooting at something as if it were a vehicle, we are shooting at something as if it were a unit.

**DeathReaper**

That does not say the building is a vehicle.

it is treated as one for shooting purposes, but it is still not a vehicle, it is terrain. It is not even a model.

"In addition to its characteristics profile, each model will have a unit type, such as Infantry or Cavalry" (P.3)

**greatergoodjones**

My argument is that when you treat it as a vehicle for shooting, you are for all intents and purposes treating it as it were a vehicle. This means it is a unit, that it is effected by melta and PE, and so on and so forth.

Forgive me if i misunderstand your argument, but it seems like you are saying you treat it as a vehicle in every way, except that its not a unit for some reason.

At this point, I have given my evidence for why it counts as a vehicle, and even though I admit freely to not understanding it, you have given yours for why its not. We both see the other's argument as invalid, so I really see no way forward from this point.

**azazel the cat**

DeathReaper wrote:
greatergoodjones wrote:
Can I ask why you believe that the specification of "everything" doesn't count?

Look at the Preferred enemy rules. Pure RAW preferred enemy needs to specify a foe.

It says Everything must = Everyone or PE does not work at all as there is no allowance for everything as a tagline.

In the Context of PE a foe is any models from that particular codex. Some models have PE (Orks) they get to use PE against any models from the Ork Codex.

Page 46 "If an Artillery unit is forced to Fall Back from close combat and the enemy is free to make a Sweeping Advance,"

Page 52 same section "Instead ,if a Template weapons fires overwatch... on the charging unit,... If the charge failed, we can assume that the enemy ran into range..."

Page 63 "If, when it is a character's turn to make a Pile In move, other friendly models are piling in at the same time, the character must move as soon as it is able, to get into base contact with an enemy."

Page 64 "can't challenge a specific enemy, he just issues a challenge to the foe at large and sees who steps forwards."

Enemy = unit in the BRB on P. 52 Enemy = model on P 63 and 64 and Enemy is defined as a unit on P. 46, as only units can make a SA

If what you are saying is true, then Buildings can use Deny the Witch "If the Psychic test was passed and the target was an enemy, it now gets a chance to Deny the Witch and nullify the power." P.67

Which is of course not true as they define enemy for deny the witch as a unit. "If a psychic power is targeted on an enemy unit..." P. 68

They also use enemy to denote opponent. Smoke launcher rules said: "After the enemy's Shooting phase, the smoke disperses with no further effect." P. 87

Page 92 tells us that "Units can also charge an enemy that is occupying an adjacent building"

In the context of the rules enemy is not a building, as enemy refers to units, models and opponents.

I've highlighted your baseless and arbitrary assumption. The entire house of cards that follows can be ignored.

Everything means just that: everything.

Can you shoot at it? If yes; it is a thing.
A thing is one of many things included in "everything".
Hence, Destroyers get Preferred Enemy against anything they are legally permitted to shoot at.

We're done here.

**DeathReaper**

And PE only works against foe's.

The "entire house of cards that follows" shows that foe = enemy and enemy = unit.

Buildings are terrain and not units.

**azazel the cat**

DeathReaper wrote:And PE only works against foe's.

The "entire house of cards that follows" shows that foe = enemy and enemy = unit.

Buildings are terrain and not units.

A Destroyer Lord joins a group of Tomb Blades with Particle Shredders. They target an enemy unit and shoot. The blast templates scatter, and end up hitting one of your own Necron units. Do the Tomb Blades re-roll 1s to wound due to the PE granted by the Destroyer Lord?

Yes. Why? Because "everything" includes your own units; which are clearly not your "foes".